“….far from being an ally in the fight against extremism, the MCB is part of the problem…”
Andrew Neil lays into the extremist Muslim Council of Britain for:
It’s attitude towards women.
Its alliance with the most fundamentalist of Islamic mosques.
Its toleration of intolerant views, hosting ‘extremists’ at the East London Mosque.
Its willingness to be counted among such people and organisations.
Not to mention a senior member signing a document that threatens death to British troops…and that another of its senior members, a founding member, is now a convicted war criminal.
On the other hand the BBC surrenders its editorial independence to the same organisation….as revealed by Rod Liddle in the Spectator:
Brave, non-denominational freedom fighters
Those of you who wonder why the BBC is so politically correct, so craven in its expressions regarding, for example, Islamic terror, may find a partial answer here:
To:
Stephen Whittle
Director of Editorial Policy at the BBC
Dear Stephen,
We have received many complaints over the last 24 hours from British Muslims regarding the use of the phrase ‘Islamic terrorists’ by your news reporters in connection with the struggle for Kashmiri independence.
We believe this phrase it totally inappropriate and adds nothing to the story and even distorts what is a long-standing struggle by the Kashmiri people to gain control of their own destiny.
Mr Inayat Bunglawala
Secretary,
Media Committee,
The Muslim Council of Britain
Response from Stephen Whittle:
Thanks for your note. I have discussed this with the various output editors. It is not our policy to describe Kashmiri separatists in this way and that has been made clear. It was an isolated incident and will not be repeated.
Curious that Bunglawala takes such an interest in Kashmir…because he is completely uninterested in talking about war crimes and terrorism in Muslim Bangladesh:
Inayat Bunglawala says it all with regards to conflict in Bangladesh:
I was born in the UK and am not Bangladeshi, so to be honest, I very rarely think about the 1971 war. I reckon it is of much more import to those of Pakistani/Bengali backgrounds than to me.
I do nothing whatsoever to bring justice to Muslims in East Pakistan. I have enough on my plate here in the UK.
The MCB: The Taint of Genocide
In May 1995 a Channel 4 documentary ‘Bangladesh, War Crimes File’ directed by David Bergman made allegations of the involvement of three British Bangladeshis in the genocide committed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971.
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, one of those individuals named in the documentary, was alleged to have been instrumental in plotting the assassinations of intellectuals, journalists and students with the al-Badr death squads, assisted by the Jamaat-e-Islami.
UK-Bangladeshi Muslim community leader Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khanwas were being tried in absentia by a special tribunal in Bangladesh.
They were found guilty on 11 charges relating to the abduction and killing of 18 independence supporters.
Radical links of UK’s ‘moderate’ Muslim group
The Muslim Council of Britain has been courted by the government and lauded by the Foreign Office but critics tell a different and more disturbing story. Martin Bright reports
Far from representing the more progressive or spiritual traditions within Islam, the leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain and some of its affiliates sympathise with and have links to conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world and in particular Pakistan’s Jamaat-i-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by sharia law.
One of the MCB’s affiliate organisations, Leicester’s Islamic Foundation, was founded by Khurshid Ahmad, a senior figure in Jamaat-i-Islami.
Another is Birmingham-based Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, an extremist sect whose website says: ‘The disbelievers are misguided and their ways based on sick or deviant views concerning their societies, their universe and their very existence.’ It urges its adherents not to wear Western hats, walk dogs, watch sport or soap operas and forbids ‘mingling and shaking hands between men and women’.
The strain of Islamic ideology favoured by the MCB leadership and many of its affiliate organisations is inspired by Maulana Maududi, a 20th-century Islamic scholar little known in the West but hugely significant as a thinker across the Muslim world. His writings, which call for a global Islamic revival, influenced Sayyid Qutb, usually credited as the founding father of modern Islamic radicalism and one of the inspirations for al-Qaeda.
In Maududi’s worldview all humanity was split into believers (practising Muslims) and non-believers, whom he describes as ‘barbarians’. He was deeply critical of notions such as nationalism and feminism and called on Muslims to purge themselves of Western influence.
The MCB’s Inayat Bunglawala said he had a deep respect for Maududi and defended the MCB’s affiliation to Khurshid Ahmad’s Islamic Foundation. He said: ‘Maududi is a very important Muslim thinker. The book that brought me to practise Islam was Now Let Us Be Muslims by Maududi. As for Jamaat-i-Islami, it is a perfectly legal body in Pakistan.
the muslim council of britian,shunned and dumped even by new labour for there extremism,the trouble is with self appointed muslim organisations like the muslim council is this,they have tried hard to pretend to be moderate and peace loving,golden dawn in greece tried the same approach,it did not work,would i compare the muslim council of britian with golden dawn in greece for the blatant extremism,the answer to that is simple,100% yes.
Quilliam’s a bit dodgy too….
Golden Dawn is a reaction, and a belated one at that, to the immigration and asylum policy of the EU.
Greece is not a rich country, but due to EU’s asylum pol.icy, and its proximity to the “lands of peace”, is heavily enriched by RoPs.
In addition, I don’t think Golden Dawn wishes to extinguish democracy and freedom, unlike the MB.
Quilliam Foundation wants to go “back” to the root of Islam. Note the equivalence with Christianity that is being sold here. In Europe there were wars of religion, until it was realised (when the Bible became available to all), that the message of Jesus was one of love. What the Quilliam Foundation is trying to do is to sell the idea, that Islam is like Christianity, and that the violence of Islam now, is quite out of keeping with the message of Mohammed. Of course this is pure dissimulation – it is trading on ignorance of people, who believe that all religions must be peaceful and good, and it is just the extremists who are to blame. It is trading on the gullibility of politicians, who would like to believe in the inherent peaceful nature of Islam, and thus not having to do what is difficult and painful – rejection of Islam in the West, and its slow and steady removal from our shores.
Contd:
Could an Islamic “Reformation” pacify Islam?
As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah’s prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its “Reformation” with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi (“early generations”) school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term Wahhabi. Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010429.html
And from Robert Spencer
The Moderate Emperor’s New Clothes By: Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 25, 2008
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30741
In Europe there were wars of religion, until it was realised (when the Bible became available to all), that the message of Jesus was one of love.
Ahem! So what exactly were the preachers saying about Jesus up to that point – that He was a bit baity?
Wars of religion involving Christianity have continued to the modern era but were significantly reduced by the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Even the Reformation caused a fair amount of bad blood, TPIM.
You could even say that most wars of religion were more about some power mad leaders wanting more power or distracting from their failures by blaming ‘others’.
All precious little to do with Jesus.
The problem is that if anyone REALLY reads the bible they will find that they have been given a sugarcoated version by the clergy.
For instance: what is the evidence in the bible that LOT is a good and holy man? (So holy he and his family were saved from the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah)
Hint: The answer may appeal to some BBC DJs and our friendly religion of peace personages.
At the time when these wars were taking place, church and state functioned as one. Bishops for instance were appointed by kings, and thus beholden to the ruler i.e., the state. Even popes were political appointees for quite along while. They area appointed by the ruling Medicis of Florence, or the kings of France or Germany.
The state has been in general the final arbiter in matters of war, whether now or even in past wars of religion in Europe. The rulers had ambitions to extend their rule, which has been the rule, now and in the past. With a compliant pope and church, it was easy to fool the populace.
Not much has changed since then. We are in war of religions right now. And yet the populace has been fed the propaganda line that we are not.
I suggest that the difference lies in the separation of Church and State, which is normal to present-day Christianity and Judaism, but was not so in the past. Both religions became peaceful as a result, Judaism very early and out of historical circumstances (exile, absence of sovereignty) and Christianity later and out of choice.
Islam is not so. The religion is still a political blueprint; hence the various Islamic governments.
I suggest that freedom of religion is a valid notion only where Chruch and State are truly separate. If not, then the religion be just another political ideology, and treated accordingly.
I suggest that the difference lies in the separation of Church and State, which is normal to present-day Christianity and Judaism, but was not so in the past.
Agreed.
The only addition to it is that this separation came about because of Christians, who did not see any reason why the state had any role to play in matters of theology.
Essentially there is no difference between the MB and the Quilliam foundation. The latter though is far more insidious, and thus dangerous, as it has UK government and BBC support.
Is there a succession of right on Beeboids saying things like
‘Criticise Islam? Me? No. Give it to Andre Neil’
‘Criticise climate change policy? Me? No. Give it to Andrew Neil.
Criticise the EU? Me? No. Give it to Andrew Neil.
I doubt it. It won’t occur to anyone else at the Beeb to attack them.
Well spotted.
I think he’s genuine.
He’s an independent fair minded free thinker.
Frankly it is astonishing that the BBC employs him at all.
When you think about it 1 good journalist out of 8000 journalists is 0.0125 percent. That’s quite low odds.
low odds indeed, but because he is such a ‘colourful character’ ( at least compared to the grey army of automaton, apparatchiks that populate the BBC news commissariat ) they can parade him as evidence of their plurality of opinion
Seems Andrew Neil is the only journalist of any substance at the BBC, and the only one with any cojones. Strange that truthful reporting and challenging journalism should be such an exception at the £4bn BBC (which thereby controls a large share of journalist employment opportunities, thus dictating their political leanings if they want to work)
Neil has good form: “Labour leadership contender Diane Abbott was seething after being branded a ‘racist’ and an expenses cheat by political pundit Andrew Neil”
But it doesn’t make up for the BBC News army of left-wing harpies, bien-pensants, overpaid autocue readers and egos-in-suits posing as journalists.
“…posing as journalists.”
Yes, exactly. That sums up the vast majority of preening super-egos in BBC News TV. Andrew Neil is very much the exception in so much as he actually prefers to do that thing still quaintly called ‘proper journalism’. It’s quite remarkable, and its uniqueness is made still more conspicuous by the lazy, partisan morons he is surrounded by at the Corporation’s News department.
For how much longer will Mr Neil be permitted to shine a light on his colleagues’ wilful ineptitude? Hmmm. Let’s just say if the Muslim Council complain to the BBC Department of Political Correctness too often, too loudly about his interview technique (aka ‘doing his job’) not for much longer, I fear…
Token semi dissenting voice which will ‘prove’ the BBC is ‘balanced’ – ammunition for the campaign to counter the allegations bias that are beginning to gather pace.
If the Labour Party win the next general election, will the BBC be able to say ‘It’s the Beeb wot done it’?
Are they genuinely left-partisan, or are they simply cultivating the hand that they think will sustain them in their current form?
Do they think that, following their own remarkable success in silencing dissidence in the climate debate with total impunity, they can apply the same model of controlled discourse to overtly (party or other) political issues?
If there is no longer any point in communicating with the BBC itself over issues of bias, who should anyone appeal to in attempting to correct these problems?
What mechanisms could be used to effect the transformation that is needed? The following three things come to mind:
1. Impose a new and differently regulated management regime;
2. Remove compulsory funding and force the BBC to float commercially;
3. Rather, split the public funding in order to support an alternative public broadcaster whose explicit brief would be to provide an opposing standpoint to the BBC wherever it could detect bias, partiality, favouritism of whatever flavour and in whatever direction. A publically funded ‘loyal opposition’ in the media – instead of having a broadcasting regulator, have an officially dissident channel to the public whose brief would be to expose, ridicule, and harass the Corporation, and to continuously educate the public about any shortcomings in equity, diligence or transparency that it found.
Anyone got some other suggestions, keeping in mind that next time the BBC swings it might be in a different direction, and solutions need to be found which are independent of our/your particular viewpoints?
You’re right paying the piper is definitely a part of it. The corporation knows which political party will give them more money.
The BBC also has funding sources outside of the UK now, the UN and the EU for example. It has become an interest group in its own right. If Labour gets in next time I think they will find the BBC tail is wagging the Labour party dog. In other words the BBC is now a special interest group that creates news narratives that suit its own special interests.
Like everything else it will take at least a decade for Labour and the Liberals to understand this.
Nice analysis, their support is for labour is based on their correct assumption that of the two parties able to form a government ,labour suites their relativist agenda best.
We can see from the BBC’s leading role in the ‘anti-war’ movement during the Blair government that the BBC’s support for labour is not automatic’
I wonder if the Labour party was to revert to it 70,s wilsonite form i.e. populist, protectionist and isolationist , how would the BBC respond?
Labour and Liberals a decade? Forever. It does not dawn on them that most of the things they believe are wrong, and that most of the policies they espouse have the opposite of their intended effect.
Human rights becomes criminals rights. Energy policy transfers money from elderly poor to land-owning rich. Redistribution renders everyone poorer.
Like Narcissus, they have fallen in love with their reflection. They are good people, they care about the poor, how could they be wrong?
What the BBC won’t tell you about Inayat Bunglawala.
In 1987 he joined ‘The Young Muslims UK’ and affiliate body of ‘The Muslim Council of Britain’.
Two years later, in 1989, Bunglawala’s father, Yusuf was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment at Knightsbridge Crown Court for importing 37kg of heroin into the UK.
Now I don’t know the names of any members of the EDL or any other such organisation, but you could bet your bottom dollar that if any of them had a father who had been imprisoned for importation of Class A drugs, the BBC would be crawling all over the story like maggots and would be mentioning it at every opportunity.
Inayat Bunglawala.
History addition – In his student years, he participated in the protests against Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses.
Recalling this later, Inayat Bunglawala admitted he was consumed by a spirit of hatred and savagery
Accused Melanie Phillips of racism, but Bunglawala has a long and undistinguished history of anti-semitism himself. He has promoted the idea of a vast, Jewish conspiracy in the media, despite this, he was selected as one of seven “conveners” for a Home Office task force with responsibilities for tackling extremism among young Muslims. He rejected these accusations out of hand as a “traditional Zionist tactic” aimed to “silence critics of Israel”, as he is an outspoken defender of what he considers to be Israeli oppression of Palestinians
He stabbed someone 6 times in the back in an incident at his home,
His lawyers, were the £400-an-hour celebrity firm Carter-Ruck, they said that he ‘vigorously denied having committed any criminal act whatsoever in relation to the incident’.
The MCB boycotted holocaust day? – 2001-2007? and then again in 2009?
“Recalling this later, Inayat Bunglawala admitted he was consumed by a spirit of hatred and savagery”
http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/inayat-bunglawala-savage.html
” Inayat Bunglawala, spokesperson for the Jamaat-i-Islami-influenced Muslim Council of Britain, probably the most-often cited Islamic organisation in the country, passed both tests with flying colours. He was, in his own words, “elated” when Khomeini delivered the fatwa.”
the Observer
He also has one of those oh so smug and self satisfied faces that you get overwhelming urge to punch it time and again.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/site_imagery/inayat_bunglawala_140x140.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/3035/&h=112&w=112&sz=1&tbnid=S2EMxgm8lYbanM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=112&zoom=1&usg=__su3TS0MxPW3z8Sm08N4aMeSk41M=&docid=uZNzg9aztyaqhM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=qhh5UtqEE8K0iwLF2oGgCg&sqi=2&ved=0CIsBEPwdMAo
He looks like a ‘lost’ Miliband brother.
or Mr (psycho) Bean from Harry Enfield